Slashdot Mirror
'Extreme' Web Sites Under Fire From UK Police
An anonymous reader writes "A conference on electronic crime, taking place in London this week, has thrown up some interesting news. Britain's top hi-tech police officer has demanded a crackdown on Web sites devoted to 'abhorrent' subjects such as cannibalism and necrophilia. What happened to freedom of expression online?"
When cannibalism is outlawed, only outlaws will be cannibals!
I especially liked the cannibalism article that linked off this one -- and ended with:
"Meiwes made a video of the event, which was shown to the court during a closed session. He could be released early for good behaviour."
I assume good behaviour would be that he kept his napkin in his lap next time.
I want to judge by myself...
:p
Can you post the URL of the 'abhorrent' sites please?
IF (and only IF) it's illegal and/or incites to commit illegal acts, then good riddance.
Freedom of expression is not freedom from responsibility.
And sadly, it's clearly not freedom from stupidity either.
"The Internet is no place for people looking for 'perverse gratification', claims the police officer leading the UK's fight against e-crime."
Apparently they think that anyone who is attracted to corpses should not waste their time online and go straight to the real thing!First they came for the Cannibals
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Cannibal.
Then they came for the Necrophiliacs
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Necrophiliacs.
Then they came for the anarchists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade anarchists.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
The same lawbook that holds protection freedom of expression also outlaws things like necrophilia. If you walked into a morgue to get a snack, you can expect to be put in jail. If you sold books containing HOWTOs on corpse-buggery, you would, in fact, get shit-hammered by the law. This is no different. If you want to act like a retard on the internet, you're better off doing it from a country that doesn't outlaw your particular brand of idiocy.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
a) There is no "Freedom of expression online" - anything online is governed by regular laws in the "Real World"
b) There is no "Freedom of expression" law in the UK - it's not a right like in the US.
c) Yes, perhaps cracking down on the web-sites might be stupid...
What happened to freedom of expression online?
Some psycho killed a teacher and the Daily Mail and Sun needed a good campaign. The pedophiles-infest-the-web thing wasn't working out for them lately so this is a better angle for them to whip up a bit of hysteria. Apparently the necrophiliacs and asphyxia fans infest the Intarweb just as much as the pedophiles and terrorists, much to the surprise of the newspapers and general public.
Hysteria based on uninformed opinions; it's whats for diner!
Do your research, the BBC is publicly funded but (as the recent debacle proves) is anything _but_ a "government organ."
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
So did the guy who strangled the person decide to do it after visiting the necrophilia website or did he visit the website because he was already into necrophilia? I am not a big expert of necrophilia but somehow I don't think it is something you see a picture of and go - oh I liked to do that, let me go murder somebody.
The more time they spend working on some website no one's ever going to look at, the less time they have for actually *doing* weird creepy stuff. I say 'leave their websites alone.'
Here in the USA, we have a big fuss over seeing one female breast exposed on national TV. Meanwhile, in London there's a newspaper that makes a point of publishing a photo of a topless model on one of the first few pages.
In parts of Europe, pro-Nazi material that we're willing to tolerate in the USA is absolutely forbiden, particularly in the places that were invaded during World War II. We can write off Nazis as political loonies, but those places feel terror when the topic is brought up since they saw it first hand.
So, what's taboo here might be fine there, and what's taboo there might be fine here. It's one of the problems that the Internet runs into as the first truely global medium.
So, because something is illegal to do, you believe it should be illegal to discuss? There's a difference in describing how to cook a human for eating, and in encouraging someone to go kill someone to eat.
It doesn't exist, get over it.
In case you hadn't noticed different countries have different standards of what's considered "acceptable" behavior:
In the US it's acceptable for the government to kill people who have be convicted of certain crimes if sentenced to death by a court.
In France it's acceptable for a TV ad for shower gel to show a naked woman soaping her breasts.
In Iran it's acceptable for women to be stoned to death for adultery.
So web sites should be no different. If in the UK it's considered unacceptable to have these types of sites then it's OK for the UK to not wanted them hosted there.
It might go against your "First Amendment" nirvana principles, but try this one out in the US to test "your rights online": start a free web site with pictures of child pornography; I think you'll find that that's considered unacceptable in the US.
John.
I cringed when I read that. Everyday the internet is becoming more of a corperate-controlled broadcast medium.
Then they came to get me,but
Fist the anarchists killed me,
then the Necophiliacs fucked me,
then the Cannibals eat me,
and there was no one left for them to get...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Remember, the story refers to the UK, not the USA. Things are different there, government and law struture wise.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Does anyone know if its legal or not to publish a book on cannibalism and necrophilia with the same kind of content the web sites are showing??? In the UK and/or the US??? I know there are different laws in the different countries.
If you can publish a book or other writing on it then I wouldn't see a problem with it on the net.
Evolution or ID?
From what I could gather from a quick Google, both necrophilia and cannibalism are illegal in the U.K. (someone correct me if I'm wrong), in which case posting web sites advertising that you're doing it would be pretty dumb. The parallel for Americans would be something like hosting child pornography on your server for public consumption -- not only would you be doing something illegal, but you'd be publicizing about it at the same time.
If the contents on a website are illegal, then it must be shut down. If the contents on a web site are considered extremely objectional, but if they are not illegal, then the police should simply leave it alone.
This guy may be applauded for trying to make "the Internet a more law-abiding place" as long he remembers it's not for him to define "law-abiding".
If the site serves a legitimate positive purpose then I'd give it some leeway. Whether you agree or not, there is some argument for pro-gun sites that relates to open source code. Not an extremely strong argument, mind you, but if you know that the SWAT team is using a SIG-551 and you can only muster an MAC-10, maybe you'll stay at home. I'm not even entirely convinced that all pro-gun sites should be protected (and I am generally pro-guns) but at least you can sort of say that there is some type of benefit provided by those sites.
Necrophilia? For God's sake, this is, in my non-professional opinion, not a sexual preference but a symptom of some psychological problems. A necrophilia fan website is not far removed from giving heroin to a junkie - it's what he wants but it's not going to help him.
I like freedom of speech. I don't think that harmful speech that serves no purpose but to facilitate violent crimes needs to be protected. If the cannibalism and necrophilia website fans disagree with me, then let them produce a website that promotes dealing with these fetishes and becoming productive members of society rather than glorify violent crimes - that I would gladly see protected by freedom of speech.
There is a big difference between committing an illegal act and talking about it. A site with pedophilia is committing an illegal act. A site that talks about Pedophilia is not. Same goes for necrophilia. If there are pictures of people having sex with indisputably dead people (and not made up actors) then it is illegal. If they only talk about it it is not illegal.
I hope everyone takes this VERY seriously.
Sit down some day and actually TALK to a victim of cannibalism or necrophilia.
The things they tell you will change you forever
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
What happened to freedom of expression online
Freedom of anything is going the way of the 8-track tape.
The terrorists seem to have won.
I'm not trying to flame, but what if online freedom includes child porn? Or people being murdered while being taped and then the movies played out online? If we outlaw these isn't that a "freedom of experssion" also?
I know, it's an extreme. But where do we draw that line? The line may be in different places for different people. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who's the one saying who's right and wrong? Why do tornados always hit moble homes? Why does the phone always ring when you're in the shower? I digress..
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Honestly, when did the internet become a haven of free speech? It never did and never will do because it's an international medium. Now, I'm a UK citizen and I'm 100% happy for my national laws to be used to shut down such a site.
What is free speech? I live in a democracy that allows me, should I so wish, to *campaign* for the legalisation for necrophilia. I can talk to anyone and everyone about it. If I can convince voters and lawmakers that it's OK, then I get my wish. If not, tough. It would remain illegal and I would have to accept the consequences of that. Free speech allows me to campaign for changes to the law, but it doesn't allow me to flaunt the laws I don't like.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Stop bashing people for American Provincialism until you know the score.
Plus, the UK is protected by EU human rights laws, which expressly protect freedom of speech.
I guess the US media was too busy shouting "USA! USA! USA!" to broadcast that particular nugget.
"*I was in in Pittsburgh one year when the KKK was given the right to march and hold a rally espousing their racist views. Is this what Freedom of Speech was meant for?"
Yes, that is PRECISELY what freedom of speech, as set out in the U.S. Constitution's first amendment was meant for.
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." --Voltaire
It's what's known as "eating your cake and having it too"....
note also that the uk has the highest number of cctv (surveillance cameras) per capita of any country in in europe by a healthy margin.
add to that the fact that the british legal system seems to be based on the concept of writing broad, generalize laws and letting justice be sorted out by selective enforcement. there's a crime in the uk called "going equipped to commit arson" - carrying matches, basically. the theory is it will only be enforced against those who "deserve" p[ro\|er]securtion.
put 'em together and it looks like britain is dedicated less privacy, and broader criminilazation. not very happy.
2 1337 4 u!
I was in in Pittsburgh one year when the KKK was given the right to march and hold a rally espousing their racist views. Is this what Freedom of Speech was meant for?
Just wanted to answer this from a US/Libertarianish point of view.
Freedom of Expression/Speech only works if people can really say what they want to say. We do have some practical limits on speech, primarily of the sort that says "Say what you want to say, but don't actually harm anyone by saying it." Common examples of what's not ok include yelling "Fire!" in a movie house (people get hurt), libel/slander (actually damage someone with a lie), and physical threats. Some would argue that even those things shouldn't be illegal, but I think the line is drawn at a pretty appropriate place.
With those limits defined, if we start allowing any censorship based on a political/religious/philosophical/scientific basis, then no speech is truly protected. We start down a slippery slope where someone can ban or suppress speech because it doesn't agree with whatever the current political/religious climate is. Pretty soon, you're not allowed to publish an article criticizing the government because it's tantamount to terrorism! You're not allowed to criticize the clergy because you're trying to corrupt morals! You're not allowed to criticize the police because you're inciting a riot!
So, to preserve the freedom of speech, we have to preserve the freedom of all speech. Even speech which we find personally distasteful, immoral, or downright putrid. My personal opinion is that what the KKK has to say indicates that the whole lot of 'em are prime candidates for natural selection. And yet, to misquote Voltaire, I would fight to the death to defend their right to say it. Because in so doing, I defend my own right to say what I wish.
And if you think that you really have free speach in the US try having a discussion on paedophilia and see how far you get. Not that I advocate it, but the subject is so highly charged that you risk being pilloried just for mentioning it.
People have done so, and probably will again. They're likely to run up against some sort of local "obscenity" law, but if they fight it they will win. Larry Flynt was the perfect example of this when he fought to be allowed to publish his Hustler magazine. The Supreme Court came out with a ruling that even though the speech may be obscene by community standards, it is still protected speech.
Try to publish kiddie porn, though, and they'll haul you away. Because kiddie porn is causing harm to someone. The kids! (See paragraph about practical limits above.)
Cool! It was only a matter of time before someone linked necro/cannibal fantasy websites with paedophilia and Terrorism!
The big bad terrorists are brainwashing folks via necrophilia sites! Doomed! We're all doomed!
This whole argument is ridiculous, telling me I can't express whatever the fuck I want on my own website. This isn't child porn. This is a *fantasy* fulfillment, for people with admittedly deviant tastes.
This issue is moot though...just because some 72 yo gramma in the UK wants someone to "crack down" on a "bad things" to "protect us" from "them", doesn't mean squat. If they want to force a webmaster's ISP to shut him down, he can be back up and running in minutes on a more business savvy and less intrusive host in another country.
Say it with me...there is not, and has never been, any conclusive proof that *viewing* fantasy material forces someone to *act* in mimicry of said material.
I don't see any links here, so how can you say what, exactly, anyone did or did not view? Did Ozzie make that kid kill himself? Do people really have sex with dead people after listening to The Beatles backwards?
Knee-jerk reactionism is not the answer to life's problems, people. Bad things happen, and frequently they happen to good people. This does not mean that you or anyone else has a right to tell me how to live, within a reasonable expectation. I leave you alone, I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
Now excuse me while I go watch an episode of the Sopranos, followed by Sex in the City. I then plan on going out and killing some people, gangland style, followed by some nice hot sex with wealthy, Urban-chic chicks.
If you are transmitting images the production of which violated someone else's human rights, is that acceptable?
Free communication includes the transmission of state secrets, disclosure of state security vulnerabilities etc. All societies need protection against that. By your reasoning, all societies should be destroyed and replaced as soon as possible.
A 'punter' is someone who bets. You're a punter, because you gambled that your text above is accurate. Regrettably you lost. The British do not need a constitution, for example, precisely because we are not a nation who does what we're told. In other words we can do what we like unless there's a SPEFIIC law against it (in your case the 'arson' suggestion holds no water. The very word arson implies intent to commit crime, hence the law is not open to interpretation) rather than the US system wherein you can only do what the constitution AND your laws allow you to. Much like the ability of US soldiers. Regardless of the presence of large FOF boards on the side of allied armour the Yanks still managed to attack several columns of armour. Sigh.
## NB: Comment here
Of course, the U.N. isn't a governing body that makes enforcable laws superceding those of its member sovereign nations. It's more of a toothless tiger whose declarations hold as much water as a sieve.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
"The law in the UK works the same way as it does in the UK as regards the burden of proof."
Of course it does, Cap'n Obvious!
No, it's because we prefer a more flexible system of law that means that judges interpret the law. This means (in theory if not always in practise) that laws should reflect society more accurately rather than being bound by a possibly out of date statute interpretation. Sometimes it works out better than having more rigid laws, sometimes it works out worse. Law is in no way a precise science, it is the enforcement of the (changing) will of the people.
Here's something for your perusal: a charming little story about a man who wrote about vile acts involving children... so vile, in fact, that he was sent to prison for ten years.
He didn't do any of the act described, he just talked about it... but it turns out to be illegal under Ohio law. Possession of child porn materials (which isn't just pictures) is against the law. A picture is worth a thousand words... but apparently enough words will get you into trouble as well (and I don't necessarily disagree). Not all speech is A-OK... no "fire!" in a crowded theatre... no talking about killing the president... and no talking about the torture/molestation/imprisonment of children.
The individual in question sounds like a sick guy, so as a parent myself, I can't say I'm sorry to see he's off the street.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Oh yeah... like we chumps in the US have it any better. What with all the arguments over the definition of Marriage in the Gay Marriage debate. Yeah... nice "consistent interpretation highly resistant to the whims and prejudices of whoever happens to be making decisions" approach there. The current admin is using the outdated religious code that says homosexuality is wrong just to manipulate people who like to hold to outdated religious codes. Sounds like whims and predjudices to me.
Un-news
Although the German cannibalism case has been dragged into this, the UK is currently experiencing a moral panic because of the murder of Jane Longhurst, a teacher who was killed by a man who regularly visited extreme (rape/murder/snuff) sites. Some details here. There are more details accessible from this BBC News search.
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
Crying out loud. The British Government does not (and hasn't for the last 200 years) derive its authority from the Crown. The US Consitution *does* lay down what the rights of US citizens are courtesy of the decrees that the contributing States must accord with. I know that and I'm not a Yank (there is a God.) Additionally, the moron who declared that suspects are guilty until proven innocent is clearly one wave short of a shipwreck. D'you think that 'Murrica *really* made up its laws without any reference material? That the Senate is the bastion of the World's original democracy? Get a clue, dood.
## NB: Comment here
OK as a lawyer please let me put an end to all the crap on this thread.
The British and American legal systems are extremely similar to each other. Not surprising since the US legal system was inherited from the British, and the British hasn't changed much in 300 years (that's why we wear the same gowns and wigs we wore back in 1700).
BOTH are common law systems, meaning that while the legislature makes the laws, the judges interpret them and the judge's interpretation of the law is the law (until it's appealed). As a result both have a legislative tradition of writing very detailed laws. By contrast, the continental 'Roman law' system depends upon broad legal principles, with judges filling in the gaps according to circumstance.
BOTH have the presumption of innocence until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. (Both ignore this presumption if you're a foreign muslim.)
BOTH require, for guilty verdict in criminal law (and with very few exceptions), the accused to have the intention to commit a crime as well as actually performing the action. For example, if I took your new iPod, but in the honest belief that it was my new iPod, it would not be theft. The idea that it's an offence to carry a box of matches is ridiculous. It's an offence to carry a box of matches if it can be proved that you were on the way to burn down a house. A big difference.
The only real difference is that the US has a written constitution, while the UK relies upon evolved constitutional norms. Both these systems have their strengths and their failings. Up until a couple of years ago I'd have said the UK was doing better but now the current British government appears to have decided to flush our constitution down the toilet I'm not so sure. Then again Bush, Ashcroft et al. seem to get away with ignoring large chunks of the US constitution, so maybe it makes no difference anyway.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
Oh, good. A fun post to discuss.
Because the guy that accepted to be killed had some psychological/psychiatric probems
What do you define as "problems"? Is it in "differing from the norm"? Do you define Heaven's Gate cult members to have problems, wanting to ride a UFO away? How about Christians, who think that there is an all-powerful Father that they're going to hang out with after they get sideswiped by a Ford Explorer? How about a number of fundamental religious types that refuse modern medical treatment? How about left-handers -- that was considered problematic behavior at one point, and left-handers were frequently forced to modify their behavior in an attempt to train them to act "properly". Did Albert Einstein have "problems" for using bizarre and uncommon ideas? Is it things that might pose a threat to you, or society at large? Is it a subconscious fear that you or a loved one might be killed and eaten, and that you are vaguely suspicious that necrophiliac material promotes necrophiliac behavior? Or, what about actual necrophilia -- in this case, both subjects were willing and interested. Should they be prevented from doing so? Perhaps you're concerned that they are being self-destructive, which is clearly irrational. What about people that pierce themselves or have their tongues surgicially forked -- isn't that behavior self-destructive? How about people that have their children circumcised -- genital mutilation -- is that acceptable, and if so, why? Is Russian roulette "problem" behavior, and if so, why is white water rafting not?
so did the freak that was doing the cannibalism.
You clearly intend "freak" as a perjorative, but yes, he certainly had different desires than the general population.
A sane, modern society would :
Oh, good. This promises controversy.
Help the guy that got killed with his mental problems,
By "help", you mean "bring into line with the general population, because his thoughts deviate unacceptably", right? Remember Turing -- society "helped" him to be straight. It did work to make him more in line with what's considered normal. Of course, it also forced hormone injections and behavior modification on him, and eventually drove him to sucide. Perhaps that isn't a "sane, modern society"? After all, that was a good fifty years ago that the Brits were doing this. Maybe we should look to today, where people that protest male circumcision have problems and people that advocate female circumcision have problems?
Try to fix whatever is wrong with the cannibal's brain/social behavior, and/or handle people like that by removing them from society to prevent harm.
What do you consider harm? Killing someone that wanted to die? Are assisted suicides harmful? Why are sports car dealers legal, when they facilitate people engaging in behavior that risks human lives? Why is Go acceptable? People waste *years* of their life on something that has minimal benefit to society versus other things they could be doing -- Go is clearly self-destructive behavior, but you have no problem with it being played? Why?
Something cannot be considered "consentual" if it can only be consented by someone with serious psychiatric problems. There's a huge difference between most consentual acts, like sex (straight and otherwise), drinking, smoking (tobacco or otherwise) and getting killed by someone for his own pleasure.
Ah, now we get some answers. The sort of people with problems, that need to be helped back into normalcy, are those with "serious psychiatric problems". Or do we? It seems like this is a circular definition.
Among behavior that has been considered abnormal and in need of correction at various times:
* Homosexuality (up to and including this century)
* Polygamy (current US)
* Heresy (Mideval England)
* Left-handedness (US public schools, until sometime in the last hundred years)
* Any
May we never see th
"Can I get married to my mother/sister/brother/father/son/daughter? No? Why not?
Because of the increased risk of birth defects, which imposes costs on society, and because some of those unions (e.g. parent/child) involve potentially exploitive relationships in which freedom of choice is not clear. Neither is there a body of data indicating that such relationships are likely to be stable.
Can I get married to two women? Why not?
This is obviously a separate issue, and a case for it would have to be made separately. One obvious objection is it depletes the supply of heterosexual mates for other men. In addition, a three-way union is likely to be less stable than a two way union simply because the stability of a two way union requires maintaining the relationship between only one pair of people, whereas a three-way union depends upon three such relationships.
"Can we five men and six ladies all get married in an eleven-way arrangement? Why not?
Again, it is a separate issue, and you would have to make a separate case for it. You would need to document that such relationships are likely to be reasonably stable. This seems unlikely, considering that in an 11 way union requires maintaining 55 pair-wise relationships.
"What about my dog? Can I marry my dog? We love each other?"
No, because (a) your dog is in a subservient relationship to you and therefore cannot be said to have free choice, and (b) your dog does not have the intellectual capacity to understand and make contracts.
None of these, of course, have any relationship whatsoever between marriages between two people of the same sex. There is ample data to establish that such relationships can be comparably stable to heterosexual relationships, and issues of power or consanguinity do not arise.
>
>Least we don't have to worry about these two groups banding together to make this legal.
Never underestimate the power of a FOX executive in search of a new reality TV show.
What happened to freedom of expression online?
What do you think the K stands for in UK? "States"? There are freedoms similar to those of the United States all over the world, but that similarity doesn't mean squat without a constitution that expressly grants us rights that most of the rest of the world do not have.
The European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 extended free expression to the citizenry of the signing countries, but there are many limitations to that "free" expression:
"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." (bold added by RP)
Thanks, but I prefer the US Constitution.
RP